 |
| DG of Vet Services Addressing Session |
The following is an observation taken from Cruzin Thots blogged by Cruzeiro on the Animal Welfare Bill public consultation that was held recently. (Pictures are courtesy of Petpositive volunteer Nicholas Foo.)
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Animal Welfare Bill
Last Tuesday, I had the privilege to attend a forum organised by the DVS on the proposed Animal Welfare Bill (please participate in the survey).
So while I congratulate the DVS for organizing this very healthy development, I have to apologize if I'm being cynical (after all the things we have seen in the recent past)-
my concern was if was simply a talk-shop organized as a public
relations exercise.
Nevertheless- I attended, hoping for the best
possible outcome.
The event began with the explanation of the draft of proposed bill by Dr. Quaza, after which the Q & A session started.
The event began with the explanation of the draft of proposed bill by Dr. Quaza, after which the Q & A session started.
Truth be
told, much of the concerns were addressed by the proposed bill-
including the issue of abandonment, strays management, proper guidelines
on pet/animal ownership, euthanasia, surgical mutilation of animals,
slaughter, health etc.
Councillor Anthony from MBPJ (and also President of Petpositive) queried if the enforcement agencies would be subject prosecution should they themselves violate the laws on animal cruelty. The reply seemed a little ambiguous ("they are all with the government"- so how?) although they affirmed that enforcers are definitely bound by the same laws.
Councillor Anthony from MBPJ (and also President of Petpositive) queried if the enforcement agencies would be subject prosecution should they themselves violate the laws on animal cruelty. The reply seemed a little ambiguous ("they are all with the government"- so how?) although they affirmed that enforcers are definitely bound by the same laws.
IMO, a reply saying that an "ombudsman"
can be appointed to oversee operations- would have been more
constructive. After all, many contracted "dog-catchers" aren't exactly
the sharpest minds around, nor are many of the local pounds 5-star Dog
Hotels.
One another point- The proposed bill suggests that the animal has the right to shelter, food etc- but we have situations wherein dogs are abandoned by owners (creating strays) because certain developments forbid dog ownership based on the misinterpration of Pt II (d) of the Third Schedule of the "Strata Titles Act" (STA), which states that
Strangely, this above law seems to be applied only to dogs (there seems to be no issue with other straying animals, even if they scratched your cars, stole food from your kitchen, carried diseases or even pissed/ poo-ed in your house). I do not understand how "health authorities" (or the DVS) do not see straying cats which are known vectors, as a nuisance or health menace- and so not have licencing laws or guidelines for them.
Many councils in urban areas these days have chosen to have a "lazy" interpretation of the above prohibition (by conveniently neglecting the second half of the sentence- in bold above), and denying licences to dogs in these communities- even if they weren't a nuisance to the neighbours in any way.
One another point- The proposed bill suggests that the animal has the right to shelter, food etc- but we have situations wherein dogs are abandoned by owners (creating strays) because certain developments forbid dog ownership based on the misinterpration of Pt II (d) of the Third Schedule of the "Strata Titles Act" (STA), which states that
Strangely, this above law seems to be applied only to dogs (there seems to be no issue with other straying animals, even if they scratched your cars, stole food from your kitchen, carried diseases or even pissed/ poo-ed in your house). I do not understand how "health authorities" (or the DVS) do not see straying cats which are known vectors, as a nuisance or health menace- and so not have licencing laws or guidelines for them.
Many councils in urban areas these days have chosen to have a "lazy" interpretation of the above prohibition (by conveniently neglecting the second half of the sentence- in bold above), and denying licences to dogs in these communities- even if they weren't a nuisance to the neighbours in any way.
Some
"enforcers" have even dragged animals away from their owners into
pounds, and subjected them to the cruel fate of spending time in the
very dirty/unhealthy local pounds. This has led to abandonment of
dogs- which in turn compounds the problem of strays (which this law
incidentally wants to address), which in turn becomes a social/health
problem.
Do enforcers have a right to take a dog away from its master- even if the master complies with all the guidelines? I think not.
How does this law address such violations?
This is in fact, also partly what Councillor Anthony has queried of the Animal Welfare Bill.
We do know that people have dogs which are part of their family, disabled have service dogs, and many have dogs just as watchdogs.
We do know that people have dogs which are part of their family, disabled have service dogs, and many have dogs just as watchdogs.
Many dogs are single master animals and are attached to their master/family for life. Just as man has the right to own an animal- dogs (in this case) in turn become attached their owners as their master.
Aren't
these animals entitled to have their master (wherever they may live) if
the master complies with the guidelines? To deprive these animals of
their master based on a "lazy" interpretation of the law, in my POV
amounts to cruelty.
Gandhi once said,
Therefore,
this proposed "Animal Welfare Bill" not only should one to cover the
proper conduct of man in owning/handling animals- but should also be
able to educate and help man understand the animals he owns.
Gandhi once said,
"The more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is
to protection by man from the cruelty of man."
If it
fails to protect the animal's right to be owned by its master- the law
fails in this very fundamental role to protect the animal from the
shortcomings of glib-minded humans.
I certainly hope the DVS would look into this matter seriously.
Lastly- I would like to once again congratulate the DVS for an excellent job at organizing the very constructive forum, to get feedback from the public.
PET+BLOGSPOT is the ONLINE BLOG of the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association or Petpositive.
Our stories are CURRENT, ACCURATE and RELIABLE.
We offer both local and foreign news on animals, disability and the elderly.
PET+BLOGSPOT was first established in October 2007. Our hits since then are now 150,000 and ever increasing!
PET+BLOGSPOT is updated daily.
Kindly note that views expressed in PET+BLOGSPOT are not necessarily those of PETPOSITIVE.
You may also visit our Webpage by browsing: www.petpositive.com.my
You can also find us in Facebook under PETPOSITIVE EMPOWERMENT.
Please sign up as a FOLLOWER of this Blog if you haven't done so already in order to show us your kind support for our work. Thank you!
I certainly hope the DVS would look into this matter seriously.
Lastly- I would like to once again congratulate the DVS for an excellent job at organizing the very constructive forum, to get feedback from the public.
More such public consultations should be held from all departments/ministries before tabling of Bills in Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment