(CN - HK) Savaged

[Guest guest]

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30 & art_id=82958 & sid=2408420\

2 & con_type=3 & d_str=20090603 & sear_year=2009

 

by Nickkita Lau

 

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

 

The tragic end to a story about a lost dog has led Ombudsman Alan Lai Nin to

attack government staff supposed to be in charge of animal welfare.

 

A savaging of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

followed the Ombudsman's finding that government kennel staff wrongly

destroyed a much-loved shih tzu after making a mess of the paperwork - and

then lied to the owner about its health in an attempt to cover up the

mistake.

 

The department's handling and disposal of lost animals and the attitude of

its staff ran against the principle of animal welfare, Lai declared

yesterday in presenting the results of his investigation into the case.

 

Vicky Chu Po-shan, of the animal rights advocate group Bag Me Home, offered

immediate support for that view. Department staff are cold blooded and

follow a 1940s mindset in treating all animals like rats, Chu said.

 

It was in November 2007 that a woman contacted the 1823 Call Centre of the

government's Efficiency Unit to report the loss of her brown-white shih tzu.

The dog was neither microchipped nor licensed, she said, but it was wearing

an identifiable collar.

 

An officer from the department told her they did not have the dog but would

contact her once it was found.

 

She continued calling, however, although she was told after two days not to

call but to await word from the department. The Ombudsman found later that

follow-up inquiries did not get passed along by the call center.

 

Still, eight days after the loss wa

s reported a department employee, identified as Staff A, was working through

a list of dogs just minutes from being destroyed and discovered the shih tzu

on the death list.

 

Soon after, the employee called the owner to say the dog had been found the

same day she reported it missing. But the owner's joy turned to heartbreak

30 minutes later when Staff B called to say the dog had just been put down

because it had contracted dermatosis - though the owner said she had not

seen any sign of it.

 

Staff A insisted she had crossed out the entry from the draft list of dogs

to be put down and took a final list to Staff B before calling the owner.

 

But Staff B said the entry was not crossed out, suggesting it was crossed

out after the dog had been put down.

 

The Ombudsman said the department needed to review arrangements for the

disposal of animals and step up publicity about dogs needing to be

microchipped. And the 1823 Call Centre should give people the numbers of

department officers for direct inquires, Lai said.

 

A department spokesman said it will implement some of Lai's suggestions.