Author: Derek

Posted on

Glenwalk: No Place for Peyton and Paisley

For more than a decade I have assisted pet owners who have fallen foul of corporate body bullies in complexes. I have seen some astonishing behaviour from Trustees, who seem for the most part to be petty tyrants rather than benevolent leaders seeking to find equitable solutions that serve the interests of all their members.

My most recent case was that of Jennifer Sills and her ongoing battle with the Trustees at Glenwalk in Durban North.

Jennifer needed to get her daughter, who has suffered trauma, a therapy dog, and after conducting research, settled on a cocker spaniel, thinking that the approval would be a mere formality. She applied on the 19th Dec and was only declined on the 29th and since they knew full well that it was arriving on the 25th as a Xmas gift, the delay seemed strategic.

When she applied, she was unaware of an Annexure to the Conduct Rules, which had purportedly been added and approved by the body corporate at a previous AGM.

Annexure D: “The mass weight of any pet, when fully grown, may not exceed 7 kg”

When Jen challenged the denial of permission on the basis of weight because another member had a dog weighing more than that, the response of Greg Stevens, the Trustee who deals with pet issues, was condescending in his response, which was little more than tap dancing:

“Obviously this dog is above the weight limit and as such should not be allowed, but in mitigation the owner, who you rightfully said was a Trustee, did request permission for this dog before he brought it into the complex, and based upon the type of dog and the fact that he specifically informed us he was choosing the smallest of the litter, permission was granted, in the hope it would not exceed the 7kg weight limit.

As Trustees we undertake to ensure all abide by the complex rules, and yet understand there may, from time to time, have to be some leeway. Unfortunately, the leeway you are requesting is nearly double the acceptable weight limit and therefore as Trustees we unfortunately have to deny permission for you to bring a Cocker Spaniel into Glenwalk.”

The dog in question at unit 8 is a mini–Australian Shepherd, and the owners Son of whom friends with Jen’s daughter is that the dog weighed 26 kg. The owner is also a Trustee and a known rule breaker. Apparently, Trustees are not subject to the Rules…

Here is a picture of the dog in question (on the right) and it is clearly a LOT more than 9 kg’s as Greg Stevens claims. And this “Trustee” is seen shooting at monkeys using a BB gun, which is illegal.

 

It seems “leeway” is only given to certain people.

But the Conduct Rule is itself problematic, because it is arbitrary. There is no condition or behaviour that changes when a dog is over 7 kg that has any bearing on member’s rights, nor can the extra weight have any animal welfare implications; it is a rule that protects no rights. The Sectional Titles Act states that consent “must not be unreasonably withheld”. Their denial, based on an arbitrary rule, was clearly unreasonable.

There are other provisions in the Conduct Rules are arguably unlawful, including limiting pets to a single animal (dogs are social animals), and prohibiting cats completely (a blanket ban is unlawful, each case should be assessed on its merits) and arguably unconstitutional.

Annexure 2 to the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act states, with regard to Conduct Rules:

Prescribed in terms of section 10 (2) (b) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, 2011 (Act No. 8 of 2011).

Keeping of animals, reptiles and birds:

(1) The owner or occupier of a section must not, without the trustees’ written consent, which must not be unreasonably withheld, keep an animal, reptile or bird in a section or on the common property.

(2) An owner or occupier suffering from a disability and who reasonably requires a guide, hearing or assistance dog must be considered to have the trustees’ consent to keep that animal in a section and to accompany it on the common property.

Jennifer had previously mentioned to the Chairman and the Trustee (mentioned above) that the dog was a therapy dog for her daughter, which was conveniently ignored by the Trustees. When this was raised again with the Managing Agent, Adele Ackermann, she asked for a medical report: “there is usually a medical report and circumstances where an emotional support dog is a necessity, which would need to be provided and relating to the specific breed of animal you are wanting. Emotional Support Animals are very specific and technically trained, e.g., when a person has epilepsy.  Thereby, the trustees cannot unreasonably withhold approval, provided the information is supported by medical reports etc.” There was no place on the pet approval application form for information pertaining to support animals.

When the information was duly provided, the Trustees then denied permission again, completely side-lining the therapy dog issue and relying on the 7 kg rule. What kind of person does this? Denying a 10-year-old girl an emotional support animal because it doesn’t fall under an arbitrary weight limit, which is unlawful anyway? How petty. Surely there are more important things to stand by than compliance with small-minded, incoherent rules.

Jen's daughter Peyton with her dog Paisley

In cases where an owner or occupier provides supporting documentation from a licensed mental health professional recommending that they would benefit from keeping a therapy pet or emotional support animal, the trustees should consider the request carefully. While Prescribed Conduct Rule 1(1) does not explicitly cover these types of animals, it could be argued that they serve as assistance animals for individuals with mental health disabilities.

As such, trustees should evaluate each case individually, taking into account the specific needs of the owner or occupier concerned, the type of animal, and the potential impact this animal may have on the community. They should also consider any reasonable conditions that may be imposed on the keeping of the animal to mitigate any potential nuisance that it may cause.

The Managing Agent in this case, Adele Ackerman of Accumin, then raised what was effectively a diversion, querying the qualifications of the Doctor who had stated that Jennifer’s daughter needed an emotional support animal: “…please advise if Dr Rees is a GP or a licensed mental health practitioner?” This was an almost desperate attempt to set aside the support animal issue. An anxiety disorder can be diagnosed by a primary care doctor. In severe cases, you will be referred to a mental health specialist (psychiatrist) for follow-up and treatment.

It’s worth noting that Adele Ackerman seemed to be prejudiced in both her attitude and her actions, taking the side of the Trustees in every instance rather than taking a neutral position. And the Chairman of the Board, Andrew Marriott, who behaves like a petty tyrant, was heard to make derogatory comments about Jenny behind her back.

When Jennifer told them that her Doctor is indeed qualified to diagnose and treat patients with Anxiety and PTSD, the issue seemed to have been resolved.

it is crucial for trustees to approach the issue of therapy pets and emotional support animals with sensitivity and understanding.

They didn’t do any of this; they merely sought a way to avoid the emotional support animal issue entirely, by invoking the weight limit rule. It means they certainly didn’t consider the circumstances or the needs of Jennifer’s daughter; they just sought a means to get their own way.

Apparently, these Trustees, and especially the four males, tend to discriminate against single women, and their condescending attitude towards Jennifer betrays their bias.

There is also some doubt as to whether the Conduct Rules were registered anyway. The Rules were apparently changed previously by Special Resolution, but there was no record of the vote, nor could the registration of the Rules be confirmed with CSOS. This was repeatedly requested from the Managing Agent and somehow never surfaced. This is extraordinary and suggests that they buried the information or that the Rules were never registered, which would make their denial null and void.

After consideration of the circumstances, which included her daughter’s rising anxiety and a negative prognosis of the relationship between Jennifer and the Trustees, Jennifer recently decided to sell and move elsewhere.

What I found disturbing about this case was the insistence, by the Trustees, on a Rule that defies logical or ethical legitimacy. There is nothing that happens at 7.1 kg that is of legal or moral significance – what exactly is the intent of such a rule? Do other corporate body members need to be protected from dogs weighing more than 7 kg? Is there something magical that renders such animals as potential threats to social harmony? Where is the ethological evidence for this absurd proposition? Are these people insane or just stupid?

In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Very small dogs are more likely to yap and disturb the peace because of some unthreatening stimulus.

Are there animal welfare implications? How so? I have seen much larger dogs kept in apartments and walked daily, without any undue effects on their welfare – dogs tend to sleep a lot if left to themselves. I live on a plot and we go out several times a day for walks, but in between those times, my pack sleep. A LOT.

It’s difficult to comprehend the thinking that went into the creation of such a rule, but it’s even more difficult to understand the motivation behind needing to deprive a 10-year-old of the therapy and companionship provided by a dog.

My experience over the last decade with Managing Agents has also been underwhelming. They mostly serve their masters, which is anyone who is paying them; any ethical responsibility seems beyond them.

As for the Trustees, they seem invariably to come from a particularly insecure sector of humanity, who need to control everyone and everything. And they are allowed to because the other members let them, some to ‘keep the peace’, really a form of moral cowardice, and others because if it doesn’t affect them personally, they don’t care.

Lastly, this scenario arises far too often and it happens because there is no provision in the law that forces Estate Agents to disclose, before the purchase of a given unit in a Sectional Title complex, the Conduct Rules that govern that complex. It’s about time that law was promulgated.

To anyone considering buying a Sectional Title Unit: trust nobody, ask lots of questions. Nobody is looking out for you, even CSOS, which is toothless and incompetent.

Posted on

The Prevention Imperative

When any organisation states that its purpose or mission is to prevent cruelty to animals, one would expect that such an organisation would be engaged in activities that focus on prevention.

Let’s consider the meaning of the word, ‘prevent’

Prevent, v.t. 1. to keep from occurring 2. To stop from doing something

To prevent is to stop something effectually by forestalling action and rendering it impossible.

Prevention is something that happens before the fact, not after the event of cruelty has already occurred. It’s something we do, in every case, to stop something happening. We drive safely to prevent accidents; we eat healthily and use vaccines to prevent disease; we behave considerately to prevent conflict.

When one considers an organisation, it’s a little more complex, since an organisation is engaged in many activities, but surely the intent of the organisation must be to fulfil its mandate guided by it’s stated or at least implied purpose embodied in its name? Surely the main focus of its activities should be on those most likely to prevent cruelty?

Continue reading “The Prevention Imperative”

Posted on

Man’s Best Friend Betrayed

Dogs have been human companions for a long time. A recent study suggests that the relationship between humans and dogs started about 30 000 years ago, when fur-clad humans were living in caves and hunting woolly mammoths. “Dogs were our companions long before we kept goats, sheep or cattle,” said Professor Johannes Krause, one of the researchers from Tubingen University in Germany.

But even if this is not a proven hypothesis, we have been friends with dogs for at least 15 000 years. It’s a well-established fact that the quid pro quo between humans and dogs has existed longer than modern civilisation.

Human relationships with non-human animals started with survival needs: assistance in acquiring food and safety. There is an instinctive bond between human beings and other living things, and this helps explain why ordinary people care for and sometimes risk their lives to save domestic and wild animals.. The companion animal demonstrates how humans love life and want to support and sustain life. Continue reading “Man’s Best Friend Betrayed”

Posted on

Open vs Closed Admission Shelters – What Gives?

In order to understand the fundamental divide in animal welfare, we need to appreciate that the key difference between animal shelters is not High Kill vs Pro Life, but Open vs Closed Admission. In general open admission shelters tend to euthanize at a higher rate, but this is not necessarily the case. Although an animal welfare org’s position on euthanasia might seem to be more fundamental philosophically, in practical terms the decision on whether or not to be an open admission shelter will often heavily influence or even dictate the org’s approach to euthanasia.
 
So when we interrogate the quality of work being done by an AW org, once we find out whether they are open or closed admission, the next question to ask is “What gives?” Both in the sense of what is going on behind closed doors? And in the sense of what has to give way in order to allow them to do what they do? In this post I will suggest metrics or KPIs (key performance indicators) that should be applied to each type of shelter, as well as debunk the propaganda each often uses in an attempt to discredit the other. I will then make a case for how both can “pull together” to increase our capacity in AW and create better outcomes for animals in need.
 
Closed Admission:
 
A closed admission shelter only accepts certain animals into their system. The criteria may be breed, available space, behavior, cost or whatever they decide it should be. A closed admission shelter is not necessarily Pro-Life but it is far easier for them to be should they wish to adopt this philosophy. In general a well-run closed admission shelter will have a higher percentage of live releases for their animals and a lower euthanasia rate. There is one important reason for this: closed admission shelters typically prioritize the needs and interests of the animals already in the system ahead of those of any new animal seeking admission. Because their mandate allows them to turn animals away there is no need for them to get into a situation where they are forced to contemplate euthanasia of healthy, adoptable animals in order to make space for new intakes. In my opinion this is a perfectly legitimate and responsible position for an animal welfare org to take. The capacity of any organization is finite, and if a closed admission shelter says that they are going to help say, 500 animals a year, and ensure that all the healthy, adoptable ones get homes, that is a completely fair and valuable contribution to animal welfare. What the org should NOT get to do is claim the moral high ground in terms of being Pro-Life on the basis of their high adoption and low euthanasia rate. First we have to ask, “What Gives?”
 
If the hazard of an open admission shelter is a high euthanasia rate, the hazard of a closed admission shelter (especially a Pro-Life one) is “warehousing” – keeping the animal in an unnatural and unsuitable environment for an excessive period of time. The two most important issues facing animals in such a system are time and space. The most important KPI for a closed admission shelter is “average length of stay”: how long does the animal remain in the shelter before moving on to a more suitable environment? This may include a permanent home, a foster home or a sanctuary, depending on how the organization operates.
 
The second is the question of space – does the animal have sufficient space to practice natural behaviors and socialize with those of it’s own kind without experiencing conflict over resources? These 2 KPIs need to be understood in relation to each other – the longer the animal is expected to stay the greater will be its spacial and environmental needs.
 
A well-run closed admission shelter should also be able to answer the question of capacity. They should know exactly how many animals they can accept into the system at any time, describe their admission criteria and their approach in the event that they have to turn an animal away.
 
Finally the org should have a policy statement on euthanasia. Typically this will not include putting down healthy animals in order to make space, but how far will they go to treat sick and injured animals? Will they euthanize animals that present a danger to themselves and others? What do they do about animals who have been in the system for a long time, for whom an adequate placement cannot be found? Animal Welfare is full of hard questions and tough trade-offs, and being closed admission and/or Pro-Life doesn’t let you off the hook!
 
Open Admission:
 
An open admission shelter accepts any animal that is brought to them. They will not turn the animal away because they are full, because it is the wrong breed, has serious behaviour problems or a medical condition that is too expensive to treat. As a result, while it is not impossible for an open admission shelter to be Pro-Life, it is far, far more difficult and requires excellent population control and pet retention in the local community as a pre-condition. The primary reason why open admission shelters usually have a higher euthanasia rate is that: they prioritize the needs of new animals seeking admission above those already in the system. Because their mandate does not allow them to turn any animal away, if new animals arrive when their kennels are full, they have to euthanize to create space. This is a more difficult position to take, both emotionally and morally. However, it allows the open admission shelter to provide a more credible answer to the question “where are all the other animals supposed to go?”. It also allows them to take a stronger position on quality of life and preventing cruelty, both by taking any animal they are able to reach out of cruel and neglectful situations, and by ensuring that animals in the system do not suffer quality of life issues by being kenneled for an excessive period of time. As in the case of closed admission shelters, this too is a legitimate and valuable contribution to animal welfare. However, open admission shelters do NOT get to claim the moral high ground on the basis that they are accepting all animals and preventing cruelty if in practice that means that most animals are killed. And they don’t get to write “killed” in inverted commas either. The euthanized animals are in fact dead, not sleeping and expected to make a full recovery! The “fate worse than death. . .” notion also needs to be interrogated closely. Yes, there is such a thing, but the “. . .” doesn’t equal anything you need it to be to justify the death of the animal. The “fate worse than death” consideration should be used advisedly for very specifically and closely defined situations in order for the death of the animal to qualify as true euthanasia.
 
The most important KPI for an open admission shelter is “live release rate.” With closed admission shelters we want to be sure they are not taking the easy way out by warehousing animals. With open admission shelters we want to make sure that killing animals for space doesn’t become an acceptable and unquestioned “solution.” There should be constant pressure on an open admission shelter to come up with ways to ensure that more animals make it out alive. Performance targets should be set and a long term plan should be in place to increase the live release rate year on year.
 
The next most important KPI is collaboration. If a closed admission shelter does not have many partnerships and is largely “going it alone” this is a red flag that they are using euthanasia as an easy way out, rather than a last resort. If they are actively seeking to grow their network, volunteer base and working relationship with other credible AW orgs, it is a positive sign that a good faith effort is being made to ensure a high live release rate.
 
A well-run open admission shelter should also have to answer questions about their euthanasia decision-making process. Who decides, and on what basis? Can they provide a breakdown of euthanasia reasons and in the case of animals “killed for space” can they describe what other options were tried prior to taking this step?
 
Finally, the open admission shelter should have a policy statement on “preservation of life.” Although euthanasia is and always will be an important and necessary tool in animal welfare, a healthy respect for the value of life is an extremely important counter-balance to quality of life concerns. Just as a closed admission shelter doesn’t get to avoid the tough questions regarding quality of life by claiming to be Pro-Life, so too an open admission shelter doesn’t get a free pass on euthanasia in the name of preventing cruelty! It is interesting to note that most open admission shelters ask whether the prospective adopter has euthanized a pet before and if so what the reason was? If the adopter were to answer: “I put my last pet down to make space for this new one I want to adopt” the application would most certainly be declined. So why the double standard then? Killing animals for space is never okay, whether done by an individual pet owner or an organization. This doesn’t mean that we will be able to stop killing healthy animals for space overnight, but if there is no strategic plan in place to reduce our need to do so, there is a very serious problem with our approach!
 
Open and closed admission shelters: Towards mutual co-operation
 
Once open and closed admission shelters realize the unique challenges and contributions of the other, and stop using what they are good at as something to beat the other over the head with, a much needed, highly productive collaboration becomes possible. There are 2 main areas that should be the foci of this collaboration 1) Reducing inputs through addressing root causes, and 2) increasing output through rescue partnerships.
Whether the shelter is open or closed admission we can all agree that the best shelter is an empty one, and the goal of anyone in animal welfare should be to work themselves out of a job! In terms of educating the public and reducing the number of unwanted animals, there is no conflict of interest. Welfare orgs should find it easy and natural to work together to run mass sterilization campaigns, lobby for tougher animal welfare legislation and restrictions on breeders and public education aimed at raising the consciousness of pet owners about the needs of their pets, and ensuring that they are better equipped to provide a lifelong home.
 
Secondly both open and closed admission shelters need to stop the “religious” debates over euthanasia, climb down off their moral high horses and appreciate and respect what the other has to offer. It is very important for any professional to understand both their skills and qualifications and their limitations. Good professionals know when to refer a patient, client or customer when they reach the limits of their mandate and abilities. For some reason many AW professionals somehow think this does not apply to them. A GP will refer a patient to a specialist when needed, a psychologist will refer a client when they are not qualified to counsel with a specific situation. In the same way an open admission shelter should be willing to refer someone surrendering an animal to a breed specific rescue group where appropriate, or move a dog not coping in kennels to a foster program. A closed admission shelter should refer cruelty cases to professionals with the legal mandate to take action, and refer people surrendering animals to open admission shelters once their capacity has been reached.
 
It is unprofessional and grossly irresponsible for open and closed admission shelters to attack and break each other down. Each needs the other in order to address the animal welfare crisis in an ethical and competent manner. Share if you agree 🙂
 
Araw Leak
Posted on

From Schism to Synergy

It was 1995. I had joined a company as Group Financial Manager after consulting to them for several months, and it was beginning to dawn on me what a huge challenge I had taken on. The company was in trouble, and the MD had asked me to fix one division in particular – a manufacturing division that was fraught with problems, from worker unrest to product quality, from capacity constraints to inventory issues.

My girlfriend and I had decided to spend a long weekend at the Kruger Park on a hiking safari, and since Angela was driving, on the way there I started a book that I had wanted to read but had not had the time. It was titled ‘The Goal’ by Eli Goldratt, and I had been referred to it by a colleague more than a year before. It made compelling reading, and by the time we got back after the long weekend, I had finished the book. On the Tuesday I hit the ground running and started implementing the methods spoken about in the book, and just 6 weeks later the result was a turnaround, from R250k per month to R750k per month and we were already cash flow positive a month later…

Anyone who has been engaged in Management Consultancy will tell you that such an achievement is unusual to say the least. What was it that turned a ‘Dog’ – the term used in industry for a failing business that should be closed or sold – into a ‘Star’, and so quickly? Continue reading “From Schism to Synergy”

Posted on

Aliens Among Us

When I was a kid, my family used to have movie nights, most often at my Uncle’s house. He had turned his garage into a movie theatre, complete with gold eggshells lining the walls and a curtain in front of the screen. He had replicated the entire movie-going experience and I always looked forward to going there.

Uncle Bill was a classic movie buff so we saw all the old movies like ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘How the West was Won’, and all the Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin standards. Before the main movie he always screened ‘shorts’, half-an-hour to forty-five minute serial shows that he always showed before the main movie, and the one I remember best was ‘Star Trek’.

Star Trek was always a little more intelligent fare because the problems faced by the crew were invariably more than could be solved by sheer brute force or superior technology. Additionally, there were the ethical dilemmas demanding that choices were made, not purely to support the Federation, but to bring about elegant solutions that benefited everyone.

The Federation Moral Code, embodied in the Prime Directive, is as follows:

“The Directive states that members of Starfleet are not to interfere in the internal affairs of another species, especially the natural development of pre-warp civilizations, either by direct intervention, or technological revelation.”

Continue reading “Aliens Among Us”

Posted on

Mandatory Sterilisation: It’s not Magic

The Companion Animal Population Control Imperative

Many years ago, I read an outstanding book about the nature of cures in medicine, entitled ‘Beyond the Magic Bullet’, in which Bernard Dixon showed that the notion of a single remedy for a single malady was incompatible with the complexity of medical practice. He also showed that single-discipline approaches to any given problem in medicine were inevitably short-sighted, since every disease, particularly chronic disease, was multi-faceted.

Some years later, I was to research and adopt the Goldratt problem-solving methodology, which I developed into a set of strategic tools, the basis of which had three core components: critical thinking, complexity, and value definition. Continue reading “Mandatory Sterilisation: It’s not Magic”

Posted on

BLIND INJUSTICE

The events of last week, where a post, including pictures, presented a purportedly damning case against an animal shelter and it’s proprietor, made me reflect on posts of this nature, their legitimacy, and their effects. It was a typical ‘name and shame’ post, which I see as little more than a Kangaroo Court:

Kangaroo Court, n. an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those conducted by vigilantes. Continue reading “BLIND INJUSTICE”