Forwarded message from Sri Lanka

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Since October 2002 we successfully conduct a catch-neuter-return-

programme in Kandy (Sri Lanka), but one year ago the Kandy

Municipality Council gradually discontinued its cooperation in the

programme and therefore we had to get an injunction from the courts,

which has been made permanent recently (details see below in an

article written by Lucien and Sagarika Rajakarunayake to be published

in the local press). On 27th of June the KMC was supposed to come

forward with their objections, but they only appeared at courts on

that day to ask for more time ... so we relaxed, thinking, that they

are obviously not in a hurry to kill or can't think of any reasons to

give. Few days later however we were informed by the villagers of

Gohagoda, where the transit home is located, that the KMC Vet-

Dept.officers had come to view an unused KMC building closeby and

gave instructions to renovate that building in order to kill dogs

there. Anyone, who reads details of the court-order below can

understand, that this would be violation of the order, but the KMC

Vet.Surgeon seems to think, that the order refers only to the KMC-dog-

pound, but he can kill in any other place. However, the planned

renovations haven't started and we were wondering, whether he was

unable to obtain the funds for it or whether he has changed his mind.

However we didn't want to take a risk and took in 30 dogs from the

centre of the town, even though most of them were already sterilized,

to keep them safe. Today the puzzle was solved: we got another

information from the vendors in front of the market: last night the

KMC-dog-catching-van appeared, the dog-catchers got down, not with

lassos as usual, but with pieces of poisoned meat. 15 dogs ate it and

suffered terribly before they died. Some were owned dogs (that's why

we had not taken them in for safe-keeping), some were community-dogs

(living on the street, but fed regularly be street-vendors and

beggars). When we got the information, we immediately inquired

whether the witnesses were able to identify the people and it was

confirmed, that it was the KMC-van and the KMC dog-catchers. So we

made an entry at the police to prevent further killing. We are

confident, that we will succeed in this, but this continous hassle is

really taking too much of our time, which we would need to organize

still more field-clinics. Even though we have completed 4563

sterilizations now, there is much more work to be done and we hope to

continously have two field-clinics every weekend in future, but right

now financial constraints and lack of time are still preventing us to

achieve this mark. Up to now we have one field-clinic every two weeks

and catch 20 dogs in two weeks to sterilize in the transithome. Most

of the dogs need treatment also, mostly for mange, sometimes other

ailments, therefore we cannot return them to their places within a

week, but have to keep some for two or three weeks. From tomorrow we

have a new worker and we received some donations of new kennels, that

will hopefully speed up the process a bit. Some private Vet-clinics

and the University-clinic also continue to sterilize dogs on our

account, approx. 50-60 dogs a month. Inspite of all these efforts we

still occassionally find strays with puppies on the street and bring

them into our homes to care for them.

 

We wish to thank all, who have helped us so far and are happy about

every additional donation to continue and expand this programme.

 

Regarding the court-order we would like to get the opinion of lawyers

or any other professionals in this field, in order to plan how to

proceed. If anyone would like to see the original text of the order,

please let us know, so that we can send you a scanned copy.

 

Kandy, 14.7.2005

 

Rohini de Silva

 

(Secretary SOFA)

 

For further informations please refer to aapn-website

http://www.aapn.org/srilankandogs.html

or write to SOFA-srilanka

 

Rabies Control - Court recognizes service of Animal Rights activists

 

 

Veterinary Authorities of the Colombo and Kandy Municipalities and

many public health officials insist on continuing ¡§seize and

kill¡¨

for the eradication of rabies, against arguments by Animal Rights

Activists that the proper method should be the vaccination of dogs

against rabies and sterilization to control expansion of the dog

population.

 

While this contentious debate goes on with officials determined to

carry on with the antiquated seize and kill policy, introduced by the

British more than a century ago, the District Court of Kandy has come

out strongly in favour of an Animal Rights organization that has been

carrying out the vaccination of stray dogs against rabies and

sterilization of dogs to control dog population as a salutary

activity that should in no way be obstructed or interfered with by

the Kandy Municipal Council.

 

The Chief District Judge, Kandy Mr. Nissanka Bandula Karunaratne has

issued a permanent injunction against Kandy Municipal Council, Kandy

Mayor Mr. Kesara Senanayake and the Dr. S. R. Jayasinghe, Veterinary

Officer of the KMC, that they should in no way interfere with,

obstruct or prevent the work of vaccinating and sterilization of

dogs carried out by the petitioners who are members of the ¡§Save

Our

Friends Association¡¨ (SOFA) Kandy, which work is carried out, by

agreement with the KMC, at the buildings, offices and premises of

the Kandy Dog Pound at Gohagoda, until a final determination of this

case, This order by the Chief District Judge, Kandy was made on

03.05.2005 in Case No: 197/04 SPL, and is still operative, not

challenged by the respondents.

 

The petitioners in this case, sought an order from court that they

had a legal right to continue with the vaccination of stray dogs

against rabies and the sterilization of dogs they were doing in the

Municipal Dog Pound at Gohagoda, Kandy. They further sought a

permanent injunction against the respondents mentioned above to

prevent them from obstructing this work.

 

SOFA is an organization established to use humane methods to control

the spread of disease through stray dogs, and work towards

controlling the expansion of the dog population in Kandy, in addition

to carrying other welfare activities for dogs.

 

Prior Agreement

 

SOFA had explained to court that they had come to an agreement with

the KMC and the third Respondent, Dr. S. R. Jayasinghe, the

Veterinary Officer of the KMC in 2002, to pay him Rs. 1,200.00 per

day for sterilizations carried out, and also Rs. 500.00 to his

assistant, as well as a sum of Rs. 250.00 being the cost of drugs for

each sterilization done by him. They had further paid a sum of Rs.

35,000.00 to Dr. Jayasinghe, allegedly for the wholesale purchase of

drugs.

 

In September 2003, the third respondent had demanded that he be paid

Rs. 1,500 per day for sterilizations, and subsequently his assistant

and other KMC employees helping in this work had also demanded a

higher payment. When SOFA indicated its inability to make these

increased payments Dr. L. R. Jayasinghe had acted in a manner as to

obstruct and cripple the activities of SOFA. He had disconnected the

supply of water and electricity to the KMC Dog Pound at Gohagoda

where the work was being done; removed the KMC employees who were

helping in the programme; and also brought in a larger number of dogs

to the dog pound than could be handled by those carrying out

voluntary work there.

 

Although a meeting had been held between SOFA and the respondents on

17.10.2003 where it was decided to go ahead with the programme as

earlier agreed, the third respondent Dr. Jayasinghe, had continued

his obstruction, and had even written to SOFA to hand back the

premises of the Dog Pound to the KMC, which would have led to a

complete breakdown of their work.

 

Resume killing

 

The petitioners had explained to Court that despite announcements

made by the third respondent that the stray dogs should not be seized

and destroyed; that there were discussions for a national policy for

the eradication of rabies; that it is better to carry out

sterilization of stray dogs to control dog population; and that the

Minister of Health and the Director General of Health Services had

agreed to this policy, petitioners had shown Court of attempts to

revive the seize and kill policy on stray dogs in Kandy.

 

The Court was shown evidence that the KMC and the third respondent,

acting contrary to the agreement reached between them and the

petitioners, and even contrary to the orders of the Minister of

Health of the Central Provincial Council, were making arrangements to

resume the seizing and killing of dogs from December 20, 2004.

 

The respondents in their objections to the request of the petitioners

had informed court it was the responsibility of the KMC to protect

the public of Kandy from rabies, and that the petitioners had no

cause for action against the Mayor of Kandy in this regard. They

further said the Rabies Ordinance made it a requirement for the KMC

to act with regard to stray dogs and it was the responsibility of the

third respondent, the Municipal Veterinary Officer to act in a manner

necessary to protect the public from stray dogs. Accordingly, they

asked Court to disallow the permanent injunction sought by the

petitioners, and also revoke the interim restrictions imposed on the

respondents.

 

A valuable service

 

The Chief District Judge Nissanka Karunaratne observes that it is

evident the petitioners have indeed contributed towards the

eradication of rabies and control of dog population. The respondents

had not produced suitable reason to stop the work carried out by the

petitioners. The KMC had not adduced evidence that stopping of the

service provided by SOFA will not lead adverse affects on its larger

programme. Therefore, it appears to Court that through this programme

the petitioners have carried out valuable service to control the

spread of rabies in the area. It can also be observed that

organizations such as that of the petitioners, by utilizing funds

from foreign sources, has been a major help to the work of the

respondent KMC. While the respondents have not established any valid

reason to stop the work being carried out by the petitioners at the

Kandy Dog Pound, it was evident that the uninterrupted continuation

of this programme is beneficial to the welfare of the population

within the Kandy Municipal Council area.

 

The Chief District Judge states it is not possible to financially

quantify the damage to the general public and the petitioner

organization in the event of rabies spreading or there being a large

increase in the dog population. He observes that the petitioners have

clearly shown suitable cause for action and possible success in

litigation. They have explained the adverse impact on the effective

eradication of rabies and control of the stray dog population, in the

event of the Kandy Municipal Council removing the petitioners from

the Gohagoda Dog Pound.

 

¡§There is nothing to show that there can be any benefit to the

Kandy

Municipal Council by stopping without reasonable cause a useful

programme already in place. It can be concluded that if this

programme is stopped it will not be possible to restore it to its

present level of activity to serve the requirements of the general

public and the purposes of the petitioners, as well as a loss that

cannot recovered in terms of money,¡¨ the court observes.

 

The Chief District Judge states it is clear from the evidence

presented by the petitioners that they have reduced to some extent

the burden of responsibility on the Kandy Municipal Council to

control a deadly disease such as rabies. ¡§Therefore, giving due

consideration to all matters placed before the Court, I consider it

suitable to make order that as requested by the petitioners they

shall not be removed from the dog pound at Gohagoda, until the

conclusion of this case.¡¨

 

Chief District Judge has made order that efforts made by the third

respondent to prevent the petitioners from carrying out their

programme is likely to affect the general public in an adverse

manner, and therefore orders the permanent injunction sought by the

petitioners.

 

¡§Accordingly, I make order that the programme of vaccination and

sterilization carried out by the petitioners at the Gohagoda Dog

Pound be continued as it is at present, and also make interim order

that the petitioners not be evicted from the Gohagoda Dog Pound

premises and office there.

 

The Petitioners in this case were Dr. C. Godamunne, President SOFA,

Ms. Rohini de Silva, Secretary and Eva Rupel, Treasurer.

 

There is an increasing demand for a humane approach to the

eradication of rabies and dog population control. It is necessary to

move away from the archaic legislation on rabies and stray dog

population control. The order by the Chief District Judge of Kandy

should be a beacon of light to those with a colonial mentality, still

holding high a century old law as their guide for the eradication of

rabies. They should instead act in keeping with the modern and humane

approach for eradication of rabies and dog population control, in

keeping with the latest advances of science and as stated by WHO.

They should also give due respect to the cultural background of our

own country. One must hope that the Chief District Judge of Kandy has

laid an important foundation upon which the use of humane methods for

rabies eradication and dog population control can be carried out.

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

This was my observation long before the programme started ie., to along with the

local officials, municipality and animal husbandry department to come to an

understanding over the issue of sterilising rather killing and seek an MOU

before beginning the work.

 

However as the court order stands if photos of sterilised dogs caught can be got

and submitted this will be a major evidence to the judge where contempt of court

can be filed immediately.

 

We should now ask for a MOU as the court order also permits that work much go in

coordination with the municipality.

 

Meanwhile letters of protests also maybe written to all concerned.

 

Regards,

Pradeep Kumar nath,

VSPCA.

[Guest guest]

Dear Padma,

 

All your difficulties I can see through as we had to face the same problems but

you know were armed with the court verdicts and the laws but still these

killings carryon in those areas where there is no NGO or protesters.

 

So apart from the laws it is the convincing that seems more crucial and the

municipalities will never agree as they are corrupt.

 

And just in India it all began with the court cases and I feel that you

alongwith all your other good friends should gather statistics showing killing

was not putting down rabies incidences and spaying was the best just as in India

and other countries. You should file in the other Higher Courts.

 

Meanwhile you could continue to pursue the matters in the lower level. I am

sure if you meet Sherry for some solution she could help.

 

WSPA is not the same Board today. PLEASE TRY AGAIN. WSPA has been a major

contributor at SriLanka regarding the Tsunami relief camps etc., So please try.

 

Your battle for animal rights must now be two pronged. One with the court.

Please get all photos evidences also. Circulate to all over the world. The

other to the court for immediate contempt violating the court order.

 

THE OTHER SIDE SIMULTANEOUSLY please gather momentum for help to conduct the ABC

programme locally.

 

WIsh I could help but never lose hope finally you will prevail.

Warm regards,

Pradeep.

 

Padma <padmaeva wrote:

Dear Pradeep,

 

what you say was written by Dr. Jayasinghe himself in an newspaper-article when

he was still cooperating in the programme: dogs are territorial animals and

therefore it is important to return the spayed and vaccinated dogs to the same

place. Even though he wrote it, he never really understood it, otherwise he

could not have turned around to the other extreme. His only motive those days

was the chance of an extra earning ... generally here people believe forreign

funding is coming in generously for such projects. But our budget is always very

tied and at that time, when he asked for higher fees, the programme was funded

by a Swiss organisation and the claim was refused.

 

I have met Dawn, who works along with Sherry in the Tsunami areas, in Singapore

and she told me, that they are very busy and may not have the time to come to

Kandy, but HSI has been helping us twice with a grant from a Trust.

 

I am surprised, that you mention WSPA. According to an information I got from a

WSPA representative in 2002, the WSPA policy is, to make the governments aware,

that rabies prevention is their responsibilty and should therefore be funded by

them. Theorethically quite right, but in Lanka out of question nowadays. However

I heard of CNR programmes funded by WSPA in other countries, but I also heard,

that euthanizing 25% of the dogs is acceptable for WSPA or even regarded as a

must ... please correct me if that information is wrong or outdated! ... but if

it was still so, our programme is unacceptable for WSPA because we euthanise

only in very rare cases of incurable painful conditions. Actually Brian

Faulkner, who was here on several occassions, when he was still a WSPA

representative and later as a consultant of WSPA, is well aware of our

programme, he personally undersood what we felt at that time, but as I

understood him, WSPA has a different approach, not only a MOU would have been

the minimum condition to embark on a neutering project, but a well planed

policy along the guidelines of the WHO agreed upon with the government. With

these WHO guidelines again we have a problem, because it does insist on

registering the domestic dogs and allows the destruction of unregistered dogs if

there is no room for them in a shelter, that means the community dogs have no

place.... again ...please correct me if I misunderstood.

 

I am afraid, that it would be futile to ask WSPA for assistance because if we

had a chance, Brian would have definitely told us, but he gave us another tip

and we still hope that this will come through.

 

So far we managed without any longterm funding, donations always arrived just in

time before we ran out, so we could always feed the 50 to 80 dogs depending on

us, and we sterilized close to 5000 dogs in less than three years.

 

Hopefully we will be able to continue.

 

Ranjith Mendhirs plight in Malaysia makes me feel very sad, we were in the same

position before this programme started and along with us thousands of people in

Kandy were happy during this period since the programme started in oct. 2002 and

still we don|t know how many lost their dogs in that night when they threw out

poisoned meat ... not only our sterilized and vaccinated community dogs have

eaten that, but also domestic dogs, which also take strolls outside. Today I

received another call from someone, who is missing several dogs in the

neighborhood since few days. We will do our utmost, that this will not happen

again and I wish Ranjit will also succeed in Malaysia and all our friends

struggling for the rights of animals in all the countries. My greatest joy in

Singapore was to see so many Indians doing great work for animals and having

succeded to convince the government of neutering as an alternative to killing.

Being so close to India, we should definitely catch up here.

 

Regards

 

Padma