(MY) council promoting cruelty

[Guest guest]

Selayang Municipal Council going to the dogs-Malaysiakini.com

Grey

Sep 7, 07 1:11pm

 

I refer to malaysiakini report Howls of protest over 'nab the dog' contest.

 

 

This is an outrage! When the Americans all over the US are condemning

their football star Michael Vicks for supporting dog fights, the

Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) is actually giving cash prizes up to

RM15,000 to the 'rakyat' for the capture of these creatures. That's

OUR Selayang Municipal Council.

 

I can't be more embarrassed to call myself a Malaysian with a

government that issues statements of animal cruelty this way. Oh wait,

never mind, they have already brandished a 'keris' in my face and

threatened my existence before. What the hell.

 

Now what is wrong with the picture here? I can totally understand the

need to 'remove' such stray animals because of the nuisance they

cause. Stray dogs roam the streets looking for scraps and sometime get

aggressive and become harmful to the public. Though I feel sorry that

they are without the care and love of a owner, I reluctantly agree

that they have to be 'cleared' for our own safety. But a dog-catching

competition? This is clearly the wrong way to do it.

 

The government from time to time hires trained 'bounty hunters' to

shoot down crows and to capture these stray dogs for our safety. But

not the Selayang Municipal Council - it not only promotes, but rewards

the ordinary 'rakyat' for such action.

 

Fifteen thousand ringgit is a lot of money. It surprises me that they

are willing to give out so much money to one person (or team) to kill

innocent beings when our local schools and public facilities are

lacking. Why give the money to individuals when it can better utilised

for the society as a whole?

 

Stray dogs should be handled by those trained to catch them to be

taken away to animal shelter homes or be humanely put down. The

keyword here is 'humanely'. The public should not be encouraged to

take part in this potential bloodbath.

 

For all you know, when the announcement of reward reaches the public,

we will have mercenaries combing the streets of Selayang, looking for

dogs, be they stray or owned just to satisfy the competition's quota

(which is 150) and win the top prize.

 

This is an outrage to our society, the 'rakyat' (public) and to animal

lovers all around the world. Somebody fix this!

 

 

--\

-

 

2007/09/07

 

 

Stray dogs: Look for better approaches - New Straits Times

By : SIEW YOONG CHIN, Kuala Lumpur

 

 

 

THE Selayang Municipal Council is promoting the killing of strays in

the form of a sports competition.

 

Are there no better approaches — more sensible, longer term (and more

humane) methods of stray population control?

 

Has the council considered the following alternatives:

 

 

 

 

Organising sustainable mass dog vaccination campaigns;

 

Dog population management through reduction of strays, control of

trade and movement of dogs, reduction of populations through spaying

and neutering;

 

Public education/awareness strategies to encourage responsible pet

ownership; and

 

Setting up mobile clinics to render neutering services for the more

remote areas.

 

 

In Kuala Lumpur, the average cost of spaying a dog or cat is RM50.

Think of how many dogs and cats can be spayed for the total amount of

prize money the council is giving away.

 

If the objective of the council is to manage and control the

population of strays in its municipality, perhaps the council should

consider a more conventional and effective strategy of stray

population control.

 

 

Studies by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Animal Welfare

Board of India (Ministry of Environment and Forests) show that dog

population control measures which work in developed countries, do not

in Third World developing countries, since urban conditions are very

different.

 

 

The urban environment in these countries encourages breeding of stray

dogs, so no matter how many dogs are killed, they are quickly replaced

by more.

 

 

Recent recommendations advocate habitat control and control of the

birth rate by neutering.

 

 

When dogs are sterilised and put back in their own area, the

population and the problems caused by dogs are both reduced.

 

 

The WHO now recognises that the capture and removal of dogs are no

longer considered effective.

 

 

Even maximal catching rates (up to 24 per cent of dog population per

year) have no significant impact.

 

--\

-

 

2007/09/07 - New Straits Times

 

Stray dogs: Council promoting cruelty to homeless animals

By : CHAW CHEN YEE, Kuala Lumpur

 

 

Email to friend Print article

 

Selayang residents worried for their dogs' safety may well have to

resort to keeping a close watch on their pets like this woman

motorcyclist decided to do.

 

 

 

I READ with horror an advertisement on the Selayang Municipal

Council's website for a Dog Catching Competition.

 

Prize money is being offered to individuals who can catch the most

dogs. They are offering RM15,000 for the first prize/top catcher who

manages to catch 150 or more dogs over six months.

 

RM13,000 and RM11,000 for the second and third prizes respectively.

Those who can't make it to the top three will be awarded RM20 for each

dog they catch.

 

How could the council come up with such a cruel and ridiculous idea?

The competition will only encourage more cruelty towards homeless

animals. The amount of money awarded is so much that residents will

try to catch dogs any way they can.

 

They may harm or injure the dogs to get what they want. I believe that

this campaign is indirectly encouraging people to go all out to catch

dogs. Dog-napping and cases of missing dogs have been on the rise

lately.

 

Could this competition be one of the reasons for this?

 

A lot of animal lovers, including myself, strongly disagree with MPS'

action. If it is talking about controlling the population of stray

dogs, there are better ways of doing it.

 

Bear in mind that stray dogs are not born stray. They are left under

the sun with no shelter from the rain and no food primarily because of

our negligence.

--\

---

 

 

 

Animals have rights, too -The Star

 

7th Sept 2007

 

 

 

OUR nation has just reached another historical landmark and I guess we

have a lot to be proud of.

 

We are known to have humility and compassion.

 

But recently, two events marred our caring reputation, the first being

the lifting of the ban on the export of macaques.

 

First and foremost, the monkeys are only trying to survive. We

encroached on their habitat and pushed them to a point where they have

no source of food and shelter. What do you expect these monkeys to do?

 

The most humane thing to do is to re-locate them. But instead, we are

sending them to a slow and painful death. And how does one

differentiate the city monkeys from the forest ones? Are the monkeys

tagged or micro-chipped?

 

The second event is the dog-catching competition launched by MPS. What

are they trying to do? This is just cruel as there are more humane

ways to control the number of stray dogs.

 

For example, have a mass spaying campaign like Thailand or teach

responsible pet ownership or even impose heavier fines for animal

abuse and cruelty.

 

Running a competition like this can cause unscrupulous people who are

willing to do anything just to win, to kidnap dogs.

 

Just because they are animals, does this mean that their lives are of

no value and meaning? Do they not feel pain? Do they not have the

right to live? Do we have the right to play God and decide what should

live and what should not?

 

Gandhi once said: " The greatness of a nation and its moral progress

can be judged by the way its animals are treated. "

 

At 50, we should move forward and progress and not backward and regress.

 

CARING MALAYSIAN,

 

Kuala Lumpur.

 

--

 

Friday September 7, 2007- The Star

 

 

 

Adopt the catch, neuter and release strategy

 

OF ALL the cruel and unsustainable methods of controlling stray animal

population, the Majlis Perbandaran Selayang's Stray Dog-Catching

Competition ranks as the most ignominious.

 

While animal lovers agree that action to control stray dogs are

essential for reasons of human health and to avoid overpopulation, a

dog-catching competition is hardly a solution and only will bring

problems.

 

Judging by the prize money offered, most " contestants " will probably

resort to any means possible to secure dogs, including trespassing

into private property, kidnapping pets and travelling across municipal

boundaries to capture dogs.

 

MPS stated in its website that it would not be held responsible for

any injury or damage caused by the individuals to the general public

or themselves in their attempts to catch the dogs.

 

This disclaimer appears to condone trespass, property damage and

injury to residents and homeowners by dog catchers.

 

The risk that dogs will suffer grievous harm at the hands of dog

catchers is high. Even prior to the competition, irate pet owners

report that when they turn up to claim their pets from local councils,

their dogs are found to have suffered injury and trauma.

 

The cash incentive offered by MPS in this circumstance is even more

likely to impel dog catchers to use harsh and brutal means to capture

as many dogs as possible.

 

MPS also fails to specify how they intend to deal with the dogs that

are caught, and it is implicit that the dogs will be " culled " – a

euphemistic term for the way local councils' animal control units

slaughter the animals brought in.

 

Many developing nations are now moving away from catching, shooting

and killing as animal control methods.

 

Countries such as India and Thailand have already adopted the " catch,

neuter and release " strategy, which has a positive impact on society,

animal welfare and the environment.

 

This method of animal population control can work together with other

methods to protect the welfare of strays and pets, like:

 

 

STRICTER control and regulation of commercial animal dealers and breeders;

 

IMPLEMENTATION of a different licensing system for neutered and

unneutered pets, where owners of neutered animals pay a much cheaper

fee;

 

IMPLEMENTATION of a system requiring the registration, identification

and micro chipping of pets where owners of animals reported to be

nuisances will be traced and fined;

 

TO implement a " holding period " of at least seven to 10 days for lost

or detained dogs to be reunited with their owners;

 

DETAINED dogs to be treated for infectious diseases and neutered and

then offered for adoption;

 

HUMANE euthanasia administered by a qualified veterinarian to

diseased, debilitated or aggressive animals.

The capture of " problem animals " using nets and tranquillisers, as

currently and successfully done in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia and

Thailand, as opposed to the catching of dogs using nooses and poles or

the shooting of animals perceived to be strays.

 

To successfully implement a humane " catch, neuter and release "

programme, we will need to take into consideration factors such as the

need for infrastructure to house recuperating animals, standards of

veterinary care and hygiene and the return of sterilised dogs to their

original community where there is sufficient public tolerance and food

and assistance provided by locals prior to their capture and surgery.

 

All the alternatives above are currently adopted by developing

nations, some of which are considered impoverished.

 

Their concern for the welfare of animals stem from an understanding

that behind every stray or problem animal is an irresponsible human

being.

 

Their investment in humane animal control methods is a testimony of

their maturity and humanity.

 

MPS lags far behind in its capacity to solve such problems.

 

 

 

WONG EE LYNN,

 

Petaling Jaya, Selangor.