RE: IN Judge and jury

[Guest guest]

Dear members of the jury,

 

I am a little disappointed at the circulation of the complaint from an

obvious animal person regarding the Bombay SPCA.

 

I am not arguing that what is stated is untrue or incorrect. I am not

saying the Bombay SPCA has not goofed up. All I am saying is that, as

responsible members of a jury, we cannot be in a mad rush to judge the

issue without even listening to the other side.

 

I do not feel that an issue like this should be posted on AAPN or FIAPO

as soon as it is received by the moderator. Principles of natural

justice require that it be passed on to the party complained against for

their response.

 

In my opinion, it is not correct that the NGO collects such large

amounts to accept a stray animal. Unfortunately, all of us who are

trying to run animal shelters know that many owners of animals do try to

pass of their animals as strays in order to get free treatment. However,

there are good Samaritans who pick up injured animals and bring them in

to shelters. Do we add to their contribution a compulsory payment for

the animal's treatment?

 

I do know that, all too often, the less well-off give far in excess than

the more well to do and that it is unfair to expect the poor to

subsidise the rich. But life is usually neither fair nor just. For an

animal welfare organisation to insist on a payment to take in a stray

brought in by someone does not strike me as warranted but each group

works differently and the Bombay SPCA is over 125 years old and maybe

its experience makes it feel that the charge is required.

 

The second and more important issue is regarding the treatment of the

animal and what happens after it is taken in. If the animal has indeed

been taken and left in unfamiliar surroundings by an employee against

the policy of the SPCA, the employee must be taken to task. If it is the

policy of the SPCA, it is most unfortunate and the SPCA must be made to

change its rules.

 

In the case under discussion, if the person who left the animal has paid

for its treatment, I think the SPCA must inform the person before

returning (or even worse, relocating) the animal after treatment, high

phone bills or not.

 

I would only like to emphasize that we must never make a judgement based

on incomplete evidence unless we have to.

 

S. Chinny Krishna