1. If the inspection is by an SPCA inspector in connection with an allegation of animal abuse or neglect, demand that you be shown a warrant, signed by a magistrate, authorising the inspection.  The warrant must include your address.  To obtain a warrant, an inspector must swear before a magistrate, under oath, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that animals at the given address are being abused or neglected.  If your animals are not abused or neglected, you have the option of complaining to the magistrate and querying the grounds used to obtain the warrant  The inspector will have to substantiate the grounds for suspecting abuse or neglect.  Do not confuse a magistrate’s letter of appointment, carried by all SPCA inspectors, with a magistrate’s warrant authorising an inspection of a specific premises.
2. If the inspection is in terms of the Johannesburg by-law that restricts pet numbers, you may demand to be shown a letter of authority from the council in which the SPCA is authorised to enforce the by-law. If the inspection in terms of the by-law is by a council official, and not by the SPCA, presentation of a similar document, stating that the official is authorised to make the inspection, may be demanded.
3. The SPCA has no authority to demand that a householder produce certificates of inoculation or sterilisation for pets – the inoculation and sterilisation of pets is to be encouraged, but failing to inoculate and sterilise is not a criminal offence – but the inspector is likely to make that demand. If it is refused, the threat (implied or explicit) is that you will not be given a permit
4. In the event that you are found not to be in compliance with the by-law, you are entitled to a grace period of 30 days in which to comply.  Animals may not be removed until the expiry of the 30 days. The following is extracted from a sample letter supplied by the City of Johannesburg:

1. Tell the inspector to return at an agreed time and date.  Make sure that you have at least one witness on hand when the inspector returns – preferably an attorney, preferably not a blood relative.
2. Photograph the inspection, particularly the ransacking of cupboards and drawers,  breaking of furniture, physical violence by the inspector (who might be accompanied by the police, a health inspector or other council official, even by the fire department).  You have every right to record photographic evidence in your own home.  Keep a record of physical and verbal abuse.
3. Get a lawyer.

The anti-animal by-law is eminently open to challenge in court on constitutional and other grounds in the opinion of advocates in Johannesburg and in Cape Town, where a similar by-law is to be promulgated.  Litigation is almost certain in Johannesburg and is probable in Cape Town.

Issued by United for Animals
unitedforanimals@wol.co.za

Contents of en e-mail sent to Lee Benni following a programme on 702

I was extremely disappointed with your show last night. I was under the impression that it was going to be a forum to ask legitimate questions but alas it turned out to be a forum for the City of Jhb to advocate and promote this ridiculous by-law. When I phoned in my call was screened and the first question asked was “did you send an e-mail in to Lee?”. You had obviously decided that any opposition views would not be aired. I managed to ask one question and my call was then muted.

I am going to outline the following facts and discussions I have had so far with regards to the by-law, please bear with me. I met with the powers that be at the City of Jhb and hence my information is first hand.

1. No one from the City of Jhb could give a reason to as why the new by-law had been created.
2. It was made clear to me that this by-law was in no way intended to aid animal welfare or be in the best interests of animals lovers. This was emphasized on more than one occasion. Interesting how the strategy last night was to show the by-law as an animal welfare by-law.
3. No research has been done to substantiate the claims of noise nuisance or hygiene issues linked to multiple pet households. These are covered in other by-laws. An individual case should be judged as just that, an individual case. I know cases where there is one animal and hygiene is poor.
4. Historically animal cruelty is defined in the Animal Protection Act. This by-law allows the SPCA in confiscate animals without getting a court order or proving cruelty.
5. The criteria is subjective.
6. Even if the permit is granted they retain the right to inspect my home from time to time.
7. Everyone has a difficult neighbour. By advertizing you are attracting complaints and criticism that will negatively affect the outcome of your application.
8. The legal adviser on your show then advised if our permit was turned down we could then seek legal advice. Not everyone can afford legal advice and therefore would have no option but to “dispose” of their additional animals.
9. A small holding may only have 6 cats and 6 dogs but can have 500 sheep that cause soil erosion and worse. This by-law was passed by the Dept. of Environmental Affairs?
10. The City of Jhb spent in excess of R4 000 000.00 last year euthanizing animals. The scale of economics will show that there is a cross over point where sterilization will be more economical that euthanasia.
11. The City of Jhb can dictate how many animals you have but does not offer sterilization as an option. If compulsory sterilization is unconstitutional than surely limiting pet numbers is?
12. Between the Sandton, Roodepoort and Randburg SPCA an estimated 2000 animals are euthanized each month. The figure is most probably higher as these figures are a few years old. Imagine how many pets are now going to be euthanized.
13. Animals are legally categorized as property and not sentient beings. This by-law is technically similar to limiting car or bed numbers. Sublime I know.
14. The testing of noise nuisance is ridiculous. Stand at my gate and my dog will bark. That is what he is meant to do.
15. According to the by-law I can have 4 unsterilized female cats and dump the litters at the SPCA on a continuous basis to be euthanized and that falls within the by-law. I may also have two Great Dane dogs and two cats in a bachelor flat and that also falls within the by-law. Interesting to say the least.
16. The R485.00 makes it an elitist by-law. To an economically challenged South African that could mean a month’s groceries. An economically challenged South African does not constitute a bad pet owner.
17. This by-law is causing undue stress and The City of Jhb cannot substantiate or justify the by-law being necessitated. It also infringes on my privacy and will create chaos with animal welfare in a country where animal welfare is already in a diabolic state.

To sum it up I can rip out a bulls tongue and kill it with my bare hands in an agonizing, drawn out manner for traditional purposes. I can also have two Great Danes and two cats in a bachelor flat. I can continually bread 4 female dogs and 4 female cats and dump their offspring at the SPCA for euthanasia at regular intervals and have 10 children if I choose but to have 5 sterilized and inoculated cats in an estate where the homeowners has given me permission to keep them I need to apply for a permit. This sadly is reminiscent of the bompas law.