Posts

National lottery drops SPCA

/in /by

Some SPCA branches have Horse Care Units, where horses and ponies that have been abandoned
or abused are nursed back to health before being re-homed. (Roxanne Joseph, GroundUp)

A cut in funding from the national lottery has forced the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to reduce its free services, including the work it does in poor communities.

Since its launch 62 years ago, one of the services it has offered is the care and treatment of beasts of burden, like donkeys, horses and oxen, which many people in rural and other marginalised communities depend on to work the land and for transport, according to a report on GroundUp’s website.

For the past 15 years, the SPCA and its branches across the country have received tens of millions of rands in funding from the National Lottery Commission (NLC).

But in 2017 that funding was cut after the NLC announced a shift in its focus to poverty relief, leaving the SPCA and other animal welfare organisations scrambling to make ends meet.

Marcelle Meredith, the executive director of the National Council of SPCAs, described the decision as “short-sighted and inexcusable” in a statement released at the time the NLC announced the change in its focus.

“We found out via the media that animal welfare organisations were not being considered for funding for 2016/2017,” Meg Wilson, the SPCA’s head of communications, said in an email last month.

Beneficiaries encouraged to ‘find other sources of funding’

The organisation was then informed that applications for funding within the charities sector for 2016/2017 would focus on areas aligned to the National Development Plan (NDP), which “only included helping vulnerable people and crime prevention”.

After writing to the NLC to query the decision and voice its concerns, the SPCA received this reply: “Unfortunately, animal welfare is not one of the focus areas for this year’s open call for applications, and therefore your application will not be accepted this time around. The criteria also exclude some other sectors for this call.”

“Not only does animal welfare affect communities, but the upliftment of animal welfare affects society in totality,” Wilson said, adding that the work the organisation does goes beyond animal welfare.

The NLC responded directly to the SPCA’s concerns with a statement several months after the initial announcement, which encouraged beneficiaries to “find other sources of funding so that they do not build a dependency and an entitlement to NLC funding”.

Animal welfare has once again been excluded from the next round of funding applications (2017/2018), according to an advert on the NLC’s website.

Despite this, the SPCA is applying for funding, according to Wilson.

The SPCA has adoption centres throughout the country. Some of the bigger branches deal with anywhere from 800
to 1 200 adoptions each year, which is much less than the number of animals who come in during that time.
(Roxanne Joseph, GroundUp)

Free services to the poor since 1955

“The [SPCA] does enforce the law and in some of our portfolios, we do prevention and early intervention for the vulnerable.”

The work done by the SPCA and animal welfare organisations may not seem to fit in the category of poverty relief, but the SPCA has been providing free services for the animals of poor people since 1955.

This care is not only aimed at domestic animals; the SPCA also treats and cares for beasts of burden — horses, donkeys and oxen — which their owners use to grow food, earn a living, and for transport.

They also treat cattle, sheep and goats, which people depend on for food and meat.

“Just looking at the impact that the illegal donkey skin trade has on communities, as well as the direct link between violence against animals and humans, the effect that the SPCA has in the work that it does far exceeds just animal welfare,” said Wilson.

The SPCA has adoption centres throughout the country.

The loss of such a significant source of funding has had a major impact on branches across the country, including Grahamstown, Empangeni and King William’s Town. These branches work in multiple rural communities, assisting hundreds of animals each month.

Donkey skin trade ‘detrimental’

In Grahamstown, the organisation works with a large rural community, running outreach programmes, offering vaccinations and sterilisations, visiting schools and meeting with local groups. It also works alongside other welfare organisations and local vets.

“We form connections within the communities to better understand their needs,” said centre manager Mark Thomas.

In the past year the branch has been focused on the trade of donkey skins throughout the area.

The skins are exported to China, where they are in high demand because of pseudo-scientific beliefs about their medical properties.

Thomas described the impact of the trade as “detrimental” because of the reliance of these communities on donkeys for all forms of transport.

The donkey population between Grahamstown and Peddie has been decimated and there are very few donkeys left there.

A large focus of the SPCA’s educational programmes is to teach people living on and around farms how to properly
care for the animals that are often a major source of livelihood for them and their families. (Roxanne Joseph, GroundUp)

‘Animal welfare is inextricably linked to human welfare’

But the SPCA continues to offer support to other communities and their animals, he said.

Sufficient funding has, until now, enabled the organisation — and others like it — to work in communities that are affected by the donkey skin trade, and educate people on how to properly care for their donkeys and farm animals. Communities were also educated on how to spot the signs of a possible trader.

“These donkeys are a massive part of these people’s lives,” said Tara McGovern, a spokesperson for the SPCA Cape of Good Hope branch.

“They are loyal beasts of burden, and are used for vital community activities like transport and trade.”

The decision by the NLC does not make sense because “animal welfare is inextricably linked to human welfare” and the alleviation of poverty, throughout South Africa, she said.

The national lottery has allocated R138m to animal welfare organisations since 2002, which is 1.29% of the total R10.7bn allocated in the charities category of the NLC’s funding.

‘It is a dire time for the organisation’

While NLC funding of the SPCA has varied over the past 15 years, it has remained an important source of financial support for the organisation throughout that time, with an allocation total of R128m.

The SPCA receives no funding from government and relies on lottery funding and the generosity of the public to ensure that it can continue the work it does.

Wilson said: “It is a dire time for the organisation. And although we work tirelessly to raise funds because we know that lottery is not a guarantee, without that funding, it can be detrimental to the organisation.”

The SPCA takes in more than 237 000 animals each year.

In 2017, it responded to more than 42 000 complaints of cruelty. In the past, funding from the lottery has been allocated to buying vehicles that are used to transport animals and reach outlying communities.

The funding is also used for outreach projects, property maintenance and upgrading, veterinary costs, animal handling equipment and salaries, among other expenses.

The lottery has also funded other animal welfare organisations, including The Emma Animal Rescue Society, African Tails and the Animal Anti-Cruelty League.

Source: News 24
Edited: by inFURmation

The do’s and don’ts of caring for your pet

/in /by

Image: SPCA

This week, Midrand Reporter zooms into the life of a dog, focusing on the hardships these animals experience at the hands of their owners.

We hope to educate and inform readers to know and understand the dos and don’ts of caring for their four-pawed companions.

Midrand Reporter visited the Midrand SPCA to chat with the general manager, Pam Pretorius, and Brenda Lucas to find out more about tail-docking and dog-chaining.

These practices take place often and owners are uninformed of the harm this can cause to their animals. According to Pretorius, “A chained dog suffers mental damage because of the frustration of not being able to move around freely. This creates a certain level of trauma for the animal regardless of how long they were chained for.”

The Midrand SPCA undertakes a number of pro-active investigations including inspections at hawking sites, chicken farms, animal sale yards, abattoirs, coal yards, security dog sites, animal exhibitions, zoos, petting farms and grooming parlours to observe whether these animals are undergoing this type of treatment.

“We ensure that the best animal husbandry standards are applied at all times and that animals are treated in a humane manner whether they are used as working animals, or intended for human consumption. At the Midrand SPCA, we believe that animals, as living creatures, have a value beyond economic measurement and are entitled to legal, moral and ethical consideration and protection.

“We are mandated to protect all animals from cruelty, neglect and ill-treatment that often results from ignorance of animals and to provide a place of safety and care for all animals in distress,” said Lucas.

Illegal tail-docking

Tail-docking is a form of mutilation and docking of tails when undertaken by non-veterinarians is, in addition to being a contravention of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 (as amended by Act 102 of 1972), also a contravention of the Veterinary Act 19 of 1982, regardless of how it is done.

Lucas said the society has had a number of cases during the years where the tails of dogs have been docked.

She mentioned a number of negative aspects regarding tail-docking, which includes the following:

  • Tails assist with agility
  • Tails assist with balance
  • Dogs use their tails for communication and body language
  • Scientific research has shown that tail-docking is a painful and traumatic experience for a puppy, even if performed under local anaesthetic.

“Even at a few days of age, puppies have a well-developed sense of pain and a fully developed nervous system. Skin, blood vessels, nerves, bone and cartilage are cut during the procedure. If it is poorly done, problems such as nerve damage, neuroma, pain, bleeding, infection, problems with defecating and urinating and even death can occur.”

Any person who is found docking a tail will be liable for prosecution under the Animals Protection Act (APA) 71 of 1962 if maiming can be proved.

Dog chaining

Dog chaining describes a practice whereby dog owners tether their dogs outdoors to a stationary object for extended periods of time.

“In a number of cases, chained dogs may be chained for days, months, or even years. Dog chaining does pose a serious threat to a dog’s physical and psychological well-being and inherently chaining creates a life of misery for dogs who remain solitary and chained for much of their lives.”

There are a number of other risks when chaining your dogs, some of which include:

  • Chained dogs do not receive adequate physical activity
  • In a number of cases, chained dogs have died from strangulation after trying to jump over an object or fence
  • Chained dogs may become aggressive and may be more likely to bite than well-socialised dogs
  • Chained dogs often pull against a chain, which then causes abrasions to the neck
  • Chained dogs may suffer high-exposure to disease-carrying insects including ticks and fleas
  • Chained dogs are forced to urinate and defecate in the same area where they eat and sleep as their movement is restricted by the chain.

The Animals Protection Act Clause 2(1)(a) states, “Any person who overloads, overdrives, overrides, ill-treats, neglects, infuriates, tortures or maims or cruelly beats, kicks, goads or terrifies any animal, shall be guilty of an offence…”

The SPCA believes in the five freedoms for animals including:

  • Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition
  • Freedom to express normal behaviour
  • Freedom from discomfort
  • Freedom from fear and distress
  • Freedom from pain, injury or disease.

What the law has to say about animal fighting:

The Animals Protection Act Section 2(1)(c) of the General Amendment Act 102 of 1972 2A says the following about animal fights:

  • Any person who …

(a) possesses, keeps, imports, buys, sells, trains, breeds, or has under their control an animal for the purpose of fighting any other law

(b) baits or provokes or incites any animal to attack any other animal or to proceed with the fighting of another animal

(c) for financial gain or as a form of amusement promotes animal fights

(d) allows any of the acts referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) to take place on any premises or place in his possession or under his charge or control

(e) owns, uses or controls any premises or place for the purpose or partly for the purpose of presenting animal fights on any such premises or place or who acts or assists in the management of any such premises or place, or who receives any consideration for the admission of any person to any such premises or place, or

(f) is present as a spectator at any premises or place where any of the acts referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) is taking place or where preparations are being made for such act, shall be guilty of an offence…

Source: Midrand Reporter

 

3 ways to stop cruelty to animals

/in , , , /by

cruelty

3 ways to stop cruelty to animals

If you know, or suspect, that an animal is being neglected or abused, please speak up. You may be that animal’s only chance of being rescued.

  1. Call our Inspectorate Dept on 031 579 6501 or After Hours 083 212 6103.
  2. Fill in the form under Take Action
  3. Email control@spcadbn.org.za

Please note website and emails are only checked Mon-Fri 8am-4pm, so please CALL for emergencies. Please do not post on social media as this is not monitored 24/7 and we may not be able to respond to tagged content owing to privacy settings. When reporting cruelty you may remain anonymous, but we need the address where the animal is.

Source: Durban & Coast SPCA

Animal Welfare in Pakistan: FOUR PAWS awarded at first high-level conference

/in , , , , /by

Animal

Animal Welfare in Pakistan: FOUR PAWS awarded at first high-level conference

Pakistan’s first conference on animal welfare, animal rights and environmental protection took place in Lahore on 18 and 19 January. The high-level panel consisted of political decision-makers, legal experts and NGO representatives. The keynote speeches were delivered by honorable Judges of the Islamabad High Court, whose decision in 2020 led to the closure of the desolate Marghazar Zoo in the Pakistani capital. Global animal welfare organisation FOUR PAWS was represented in the panel and was honoured with an award for having conducted numerous wildlife rescues in Pakistan since 2020. The aim of the first conference of its kind was to discuss urgent solutions to improve animal welfare in the country.

The two-day conference in Lahore was well attended by a contingent of local media. Panel discussions on animal rights and animal welfare in Pakistan, global food systems and their ecological footprint took place simultaneously at several locations. Information stands and a cultural programme complemented the networking event. Veterinarian Dr Amir Khalil received an award for his efforts in Pakistan on behalf of the global animal welfare organisation FOUR PAWS. These include the spectacular rescue of elephant Kaavan and the Himalayan brown bears Suzie and Bubloo in 2020 and, most recently, the family reunion of elephant Madhubala.

“The Animal Welfare Conference in Lahore is a great opportunity to raise the profile of animal welfare in Pakistan. The current Animal Welfare Act is over 100 years old and mainly penalises cruelty to animals such as physical punishment and overworking for donkeys and other working animals. There needs to be clear legislation at the national level for all animals, including wild animals,”

 Josef Pfabigan, CEO and President of FOUR PAWS

The call for national legislation for all animals

Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court in Islamabad highlighted in his keynote the importance of recognizing animal rights as an acknowledgement of animals’ intrinsic value. Despite some local improvements, animal welfare in the country remains the responsibility of the individual regions. Improvement proposals for a new law are currently stalled at the livestock department in Sindh. In addition to provisions for animal health and regulations for animals in entertainment, these suggested improvements also include the protection of wild animals, such as bears and elephants.

A decision by the High Court in 2020 made an elephant fly

“The rescue of Kaavan is a story of superlatives. Never before had FOUR PAWS transported an elephant by cargo plane. We were also very lucky to be working with a global star like the musician Cher. Rescuing those animals from the neglected Marghazar Zoo would not have been possible without the support of the authorities. Only the decision of the High Court for animals to be seen as sentient beings made the rescue of Kaavan a reality. On behalf of FOUR PAWS, I would like to thank the committee for the award. We will continue to offer our support in the future to help even more animals in Pakistan,” says FOUR PAWS veterinarian Dr Amir Khalil who shares a special bond with elephant Kaavan after leading the relocation efforts.

“The wild animals rescued by FOUR PAWS are ambassadors for a species-appropriate life and for finding sustainable solutions, which we want to achieve for as many animals as possible. If new animal protection laws come into force, we stress that the positive developments will also include farm animals in Pakistan. We hope that the conference will be continued to shed even more light on the pressing issues of animal welfare in the country,” concludes Pfabigan.

Animal

Background

The Animal Welfare Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals dates back to 1890 and a revision is an important step forward. A successful implementation of the legal improvements and a growing awareness of animal welfare among the population are also important to improve the lives of all animals in Pakistan.

Successful FOUR PAWS rescue missions

  • The ‘loneliest elephant in the world’
    The pictures of Kaavan, the ‘loneliest elephant in the world’, went around the world in 2020. The pachyderm was rescued from the cruel conditions of Marghazar Zoo in Islamabad with the help of Free the Wild, an organisation founded by pop star Cher. In a breathtaking operation, the elephant was soon found on a cargo plane that took him to his new, species-appropriate home in Cambodia, the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary in Siem Reap.
     
  • Madhubala: Family reunion after 15 years of separation
    In November last year, FOUR PAWS was able to reunite the elephant Madhubala with her two siblings Malika and Sonia after 15 years of separation. Sadly, Sonia died shortly afterwards of a sepsis, the result of years of inappropriate husbandry.

Source:  FOUR PAWS

Cruelty for Clicks: Social Media Animal Cruelty in South Africa

/in /by

Cruelty

Cruelty for Clicks: Social Media Animal Cruelty in South Africa

As social media platforms continue to evolve, especially with the rapid rise in the popularity of TikTok in South Africa, the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has become increasingly concerned with the alarming surge in content depicting animal cruelty being shared online. This disturbing trend is not only unprecedented but has led to a significant shift in the NSPCA’s priorities, prompting more resources to be directed toward investigating “social media crimes” and less time spent on traditional fieldwork, including vital on-the-ground inspections and investigations.

The nature of these videos presents significant challenges, particularly due to the scarcity of crucial information, such as the incident’s date, time, and location. Additionally, identifying those responsible for both committing these heinous acts and distributing the content remains a difficult task.

The NSPCA reported on two incidents of severe, deliberate animal cruelty captured on video and shared online in the last quarter of 2024. In January 2025 alone, five of these tragic incidents were reported. These acts include the brutal killing of a warthog;[1] the cruel stoning of a brown hyena;[2] the conviction of a man who smoked marijuana through a container containing a live snake;[3] a TikTok influencer who force-fed a fish with beer;[4] a Nile crocodile who was kicked, beaten, and had its teeth slashed out;[5] a male Chacma baboon who was chased, beaten, and set alight at a school in Delmas, Mpumalanga;[6] and most recently a Zebra, who was hacked to death with an axe while still alive.[7]

This surge in cruelty has led the NSPCA to question the motivations behind this phenomenon.  On one hand, what drives social media users to engage in or support such acts of animal cruelty, while simultaneously sharing the content online? On the other, what explains the consumers’ insatiable appetite for such material, leading it to go viral – often due to widespread outrage and dissent rather than its merit?

This article aims to explore the psychology of the consumption of animal cruelty content on social media and the psychological effects thereof.

Types of Social Media “Publishers”

In all seven incidents of deliberate animal cruelty caught on video and circulated on social media mentioned above, the publishers who caused such content to go viral can be divided into four distinct categories, namely:

  1. Influencers who commit animal cruelty for entertainment;
  2. Those who participate in groups committing animal cruelty, even without directly inflicting harm;
  3. Bystanders who film an unaffiliated party not and do not intervene; and
  4. Those who share existing footage of animal cruelty, despite not being present during the act.

Influencers Committing Cruelty for Entertainment

This category of conduct is not new and has manifested itself on YouTube at least twice in the past.  However,  platforms such as TikTok and those who have adopted short-form video content features (e.g. Instagram reels, YouTube shorts) make it easier to generate accessible content.  influencers may feel  compelled to post  sensationalist content with “shock value” to maintain popularity and influence.

Individuals in this category often engage in animal cruelty to gain attention, increase their online following, and achieve financial gain.  The desire for social recognition and monetary rewards can drive them to create  provocative content, regardless of ethical considerations.  This behaviour aligns with findings that unethical treatment of animals is sometimes employed to generate fame and profit on social media platforms.[8]

Participants to Group Animal Cruelty

An example of this category is the Zebra incident,[9] where the dialogue between the participants and their close proximity to the incident make it clear that the perpetrators know each other, are familiar, and act with a common purpose in the execution of the animal cruelty.

Those who participate in groups committing animal cruelty, even without directly inflicting harm, may be influenced by social dynamics such as peer pressure and a desire for group acceptance.  The collective environment can diminish personal accountability, leading individuals to partake in or support actions they might otherwise avoid.

Non-intervening Bystanders

As can be seen in the footage of the Chacma baboon,[10] these obscene acts of animal cruelty sometimes attract a crowd, who film the incidents and share them on social media, without intervening in the cruelty, thereby allowing it to continue.  

Bystanders who record acts of cruelty without intervening may experience a diffusion of responsibility, assuming that someone else will take action.  The presence of a camera can create a psychological distance, causing detachment from reality and a diminished sense of urgency. Additionally, the motivation to capture shocking content for potential online recognition can override the impulse to help.  This behaviour reflects a complex interplay between desensitisation to violence and the pursuit of social media validation.[11]

Third Parties Sharing Existing Footage

This may be the most common category and the reason why these videos gain immense attention and go viral within hours.

Those who share existing footage of animal cruelty, despite not being present during the act, might do so with intentions of raising awareness or expressing outrage. However, this can inadvertently contribute to the spread of harmful content, potentially normalising the behaviour and desensitizing the audience.  The act of sharing can also be driven by a psychological need to align with social groups or to participate in collective discussions, even when the content is distressing.  It is important to recognise that sharing such content can have unintended negative consequences, including fuelling further negative behaviour.[12]

Psychological Drivers Behind Sharing Animal Cruelty Content

Sanam Naran, a counselling psychologist,  was interviewed by the NSPCA and highlighted several psychological factors that contribute to the online sharing of animal cruelty videos.[13]

Individuals predisposed to certain personality disorders, childhood trauma, or mental health struggles may be more likely to engage in this behaviour.  Additionally, social validation plays a significant role, as individuals seek approval, recognition, or a sense of belonging through engagement on social media.

In some cases, sharing such content provides temporary relief from personal anxieties or serves as a maladaptive coping mechanism.  However, regardless of the intent, every share increases the visibility of the original content, inadvertently rewarding the perpetrators with increased engagement.

The Role of Desensitisation in Animal Cruelty

The prevalence of violent and disturbing content on social media has led to widespread desensitisation, where individuals become emotionally numb to cruelty.[14]  This phenomenon reduces empathy and decreases the likelihood of intervention.  As people are continually exposed to graphic images and videos, their capacity for moral outrage diminishes, making them passive observers rather than active challengers of cruelty.  This desensitisation extends beyond animal abuse to other forms of violence, including domestic violence and self-harm, further normalising the encounter of harmful acts in digital spaces.

Influence of Peer Pressure and Group Dynamics

Peer pressure does not only affect adolescents; adults, too, can succumb to social influence when engaging in or witnessing acts of cruelty.[15]  Individuals with a history of social exclusion or rejection may be more susceptible to engaging in harmful behaviours to gain acceptance within a group.  In settings where animal cruelty occurs collectively, participants – whether active perpetrators or bystanders – may be driven by a need for social validation.  The presence of an audience can reinforce harmful actions, as individuals are more likely to conform to group norms rather than challenge unethical behaviour.

Combatting Animal Cruelty on Social Media

To counteract the spread of animal cruelty content online, social media users, organisations, and platforms must adopt proactive measures.[16]  Raising awareness through educational campaigns can help shift public perception, emphasising that animal cruelty is  both unlawful and morally reprehensible and must not be shared for engagement.  Additionally, calling for  stricter content moderation protocols on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram – such as automatically flagging or removing violent content – can  limit circulation. However, broader societal discussions about the link between mental health and animal cruelty  are essential, as addressing the root causes of these behaviours is key to long-term change.

Conclusion

The disturbing rise of animal cruelty content on social media is a complex issue that demands urgent attention.  Whether driven by the pursuit of online fame, social validation, or sheer indifference, the act of filming, sharing, or engaging with such content perpetuates further harm and normalises violence. The psychological effects of desensitisation, group dynamics, and the digital reward system further exacerbate the problem, creating an environment where cruelty can thrive unchecked.

To combat this, a multidimensional approach is needed – one that includes stricter platform regulation, public education, and a sense of ethical responsibility among social media users.  By refusing to engage with or share harmful content, reporting violations using the appropriate channels, and promoting compassion over cruelty, progress can be made dismantling this toxic trend.  Ultimately, social media should be a tool for positive change, not a stage for suffering.

[1] NSPCA. (2024, October 18). R15,000 reward for any information that leads to a successful prosecution [Video]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/NSPCA/videos/1622867721912062.

[2] NSPCA. (2024, October 24). Another stoning; more cruelty [Video]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/NSPCA/videos/517104104505987.

[3] NSPCA. (2028, January 08). Conviction for snake in a bong. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/conviction-for-snake-in-a-bong/.

[4] NSPCA. (2025, January 17). TikTok abuser to face prosecution for force-feeding fish with alcohol. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/tik-tok-abuser-to-face-prosecution-for-force-feeding-fish-with-alcohol/

[5] NSPCA. (2025, January 25). Another victim of social media entertainment. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/another-victim-of-social-media-entertainment/

[6] NSPCA South Africa. (2025, February 10). R20,000 reward for Raygun: Help us find the truth. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/r20000-reward-for-raygun-help-us-find-the-truth/

[7] NSPCA South Africa. (2024, October 18). Brutal killing of zebra highlights horrific cruelty trends. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/brutal-killing-of-zebra-highlights-horrific-cruelty-trends/

[8] Cumming, P. (2023, September 19). Animal cruelty and social media. LifeBonder. https://lifebonder.com/blog/2023/09/19/animal-cruelty-and-social-media/.

[9] n7 above.

[10] n6 above.

[11] Krahé, B., Möller, I., Huesmann, L. R., Kirwil, L., Felber, J., & Berger, A. (2011). Desensitization to media violence: links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(4), 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021711.

[12] Wild Welfare. (2023, April 10). Why sharing online animal cruelty content doesn’t help. Wild Welfare. https://wildwelfare.org/sharing-isnt-caring/.

[13] Naran, S. (2025, February 27). Interview by NSPCA.

[14] As above.

[15] n13 above.

[16] n13 above.

Source: NSPCA

Local Man Arrested for Unlicensed Veterinary Procedures and Animal Cruelty in Hanover Park

/in , , , , , , /by

Veterinary

Local Man Arrested for Unlicensed Veterinary Procedures and Animal Cruelty in Hanover Park

The Cape of Good Hope SPCA conducted an investigation into allegations of animal cruelty involving Mr. Jamie Pieterse from K9 Patrol Pet Army, a non-profit organisation purporting to enhance animal care. This organisation solicits public donations to fund its activities.

The investigation was initiated after Jamie allegedly treated a severely injured dog in Hanover Park using inappropriate methods. Reports indicate that he used super glue and aloe to address a dog’s torn ear without cleaning the wound or administering any form of pain relief or antibiotics, a method not aligned with accepted veterinary standards. It is also important to note that Jamie is not registered with the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC) to perform any veterinary procedures.

SPCA Inspector Jeffrey Mfini intervened upon notification of the incident, ensuring that the dog received proper veterinary care. The dog is currently under treatment at the SPCA Hospital.

Veterinary

The investigation into Jamie was strengthened by video footage captured during the incident, which shows the distressing treatment of the injured dog. In the video, the dog can be heard crying in pain as it was restrained and its mouth held shut while Jamie applied super glue to its ear. The footage, which visibly documents the dog’s suffering, has played a crucial role in highlighting the inappropriate and unlawful veterinary care provided by Jamie. This evidence has been instrumental in pursuing charges of animal cruelty and illegal veterinary practice.

Veterinary

Watch the Full Video as Shared by the Creator Here.

Following the incident, Jamie was arrested with the assistance of the Kirstenhof SAPS and City of Cape Town Law Enforcement.

He faces charges of animal cruelty in terms of the Animals Protection Act and for unlawfully undertaking veterinary procedures without being registered in terms of the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act.

Veterinary

This case highlights the importance of professional veterinary care and the risks associated with untrained individuals attempting medical treatments on animals.

The public is advised to exercise caution and verify the credentials of organisations and individuals claiming to assist animals, ensuring that their operations conform to legal and professional standards.

Source: Cape of Good Hope SPCA 

Blood Sweat and Neglect

/in , , , , , , /by

Neglect

Blood Sweat and Neglect

Sick. Wounded. Forced to Work.

Three horses. Three cases of cruelty in only three weeks – And cruelty for hire— is exposed as a grim reality for Cape Town’s working horses. These are their stories.

March 5th: Broken, Bleeding, and Still Forced to Work

Inspector Jeffrey Mfini spotted a pony in distress on Spine Road, Mitchells Plain. The pony’s fetlocks were bleeding from deep puncture wounds. Crude, ill-fitting tack dug into him and he was still doing his best, still trying even though every step brought him suffering.

Neglect

“We were his only chance,” says Inspector Mfini, “There was no way I was going to let him work in this state”.

With the help of the City of Cape Town’s Law Enforcement Animal Control Unit, the SPCA seized the pony. He is now safe, healing at the SPCA’s Horse Care Unit.

March 5th: A Risk with Every Step

Later that same day, Inspector Julian Van Der Zandt came across another pony struggling to pull a cart. She was shod on only one hoof—every step putting her at risk of injury.

Those driving her tried to flee. They failed.

Neglect

“This wasn’t a lack of education or understanding. They knew they were in the wrong,” says Van Der Zandt. “Why else would they attempt to flee?”.

Fortunately, we could count on Law Enforcement’s support and the SPCA took the pony into care. Another pony given a chance to rest, a reprieve from a life sentence of suffering while we fight for a permanent one.

March 17th: Crushed Under an Impossible Load

A dark bay mare, named Willamina, was dragging a scrap car on a cart (the 4th case we have encounted like this recently). The load alone weighed 880kg. The three men riding the cart added even more weight. She was physically buckling. Her body was failing, but they kept pushing. And she also kept trying, because what else could she do?

Neglect

Inspector Van Der Zandt intervened immediately, detaching her from the crushing weight. A seizure notice was issued. Willamina was transported to the SPCA’s Horse Care Unit. Her owner, Moestakiem Jacobs, and his two accomplices—one the owner, the others renters—were arrested under the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962.

“She was failing under a weight she should never have carried. They didn’t care. We did.” – Inspector Julian Van Der Zandt

Rent for a Day. Used, Abused, Repeat.

These horses weren’t just neglected—they were exploited. Many working horses aren’t even owned by those driving them. They are rented for the day, in conditions of neglect, and then forced to pull loads beyond their strength. This is their life… Neglect, abuse and exploitation on repeat.

Change is Coming.

We have made recommendations to amend the City’s by-laws to better protect working horses. The draft is under review. It will not undo the suffering these horses have endured, but it can help prevent it from happening again.

Until then, we will keep seizing, rescuing, and arresting—until there are no more horses for hire.

A Thank You to Those Who Stand With Us

We extend our sincere gratitude to the City of Cape Town’s Law Enforcement: Animal Control Unit for their commitment to the animals of Cape Town and their support of the work of the SPCA. Our load is made easier by their service. We’re equally  thankful for every donor who supports the work of our Horse Care Unit.   Thank you for your donations that help us stop this exploitation and protect its victims.

Source: Cape of Good Hope SPCA 

Pet euthanasia at the SPCA – the difficult choice

/in , , /by

Pet

Pet euthanasia at the SPCA – the difficult choice

Euthanasia is one of the most heartbreaking but necessary responsibilities of the Durban & Coast SPCA.

No one wants to put a healthy animal to sleep. But the pet overpopulation, coupled with a shortage of good homes, creates a crisis that no shelter – no matter how big or well-funded – can manage indefinitely.

The reality of pet overpopulation

Every year, thousands of unwanted pets find their way to the SPCA. Some are unwanted, abandoned by owners who can no longer care for them, whether it be due to financial difficulties, behavioural issues or changing circumstances. Others are strays that are lost and picked up by our inspectorate, or a member of public brings them in. The numbers are staggering … well over a thousand dogs and cats are admitted to our SPCA every month.

Nationwide there are an estimated 4 million homeless dogs and cats.
There are simply not enough cages, kennels, or responsible adopters for all the unwanted animals. Even if room could be found for them all, keeping animals caged for life is not a solution. It is cruelty in a different form.

Pet

What about ‘no-kill’ private rescuers or fosters?

Misinformed people, who don’t understand the reality of the situation, passionately endorse those with a ‘no-kill’ policy. But when these rescuers reach capacity – as they inevitably do – one of two things happens.

Homeless animals are turned away. Desperate owners, seeking a safe refuge for a pet they can no longer keep are told, “Sorry, we’re full”. Or put on a waiting list until a place becomes available. In the meantime, unwanted animals are left to an uncertain fate. They may be abandoned and left to fend for themselves, at risk of starvation and disease.

More and more animals are admitted, leading to overcrowding and horrific suffering. With increasing numbers, the ability to provide veterinary care, nutrition and hygiene is compromised. Long-term incarceration can lead to animals becoming withdrawn, depressed and/or aggressive due to lack of freedom and human interaction. Sick and suffering animals are not put out of their misery. They are left to endure the most miserable existence.

Pet

This is unacceptable to the SPCA movement, as it should be to all who care for animals. Compassion alone is not enough; we also need the courage to do the right thing, no matter how unpopular or personally hurtful we find it.

We are not alone in this view. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the world’s largest and most influential animal rights organisation, holds a similar view.

When is euthanasia considered?

Euthanasia is not a decision made lightly. The SPCA follows strict ethical guidelines to ensure that animals are only euthanised when absolutely necessary, for example when they are:

  • Severely ill or injured: If an animal is suffering from an untreatable condition that causes extreme pain or distress, euthanasia is the kindest option. Or if they are harbouring a disease which could infect and be fatal to other animals in our care.
  • Aggressive or dangerous: Some animals, often due to past abuse or neglect, exhibit behaviours that make them a risk to humans and other animals. If rehabilitation is not possible, euthanasia may be the only humane option.
  • Unadoptable: When an animal has been waiting for a home for an extended period, has been passed over repeatedly, and is deteriorating mentally and physically due to prolonged confinement, euthanasia may be considered to prevent prolonged suffering.

A humane end vs. a life of suffering

We understand that the thought of euthanasia is painful. But consider the alternative. An unwanted animal released onto the streets faces hunger, disease, injury, and abuse. Packs of stray dogs become a danger to communities. Feral cats produce more and more offspring, leading to ongoing suffering.

Euthanasia, while heartbreaking, is sometimes the kindest choice. It ensures that an animal is spared a life of misery, neglect, and suffering.

Pet

What you can do to help

The solution to this heartbreaking problem lies not in judgment or criticism, but in action. Here’s how you can make a difference:

  • Spay and neuter your pets to prevent unwanted litters.
  • Adopt, don’t shop. Give a shelter animal a second chance at life.
  • Educate others about responsible pet ownership.
  • Support the SPCA through donations or volunteering.

No one at the SPCA takes euthanasia lightly. The veterinarians and staff who perform this difficult task do so with heavy hearts, driven by compassion and a desire to prevent further suffering.

We all share the same goal: a world where every animal has a loving home. Until that day comes, the SPCA will continue to fight for the welfare of every animal, making the hard choices when necessary and working tirelessly to find lasting solutions.

If you want to be part of the solution, consider supporting the SPCA in any way you can. Together, we can reduce the number of unwanted animals and create a future where euthanasia is no longer necessary.

Source: Durban SPCA